House passes bill to ban all cloning

Goldie: Let me help you catch up.

1. We do not know with any degree of certainty when life begins ("Creation").
2. The preamble states that we are all Created equal, and endowed with the inalienable right to life.
3. Terry is having a difficult time with the concept of "inalienable".

I think that about does it.

The blastula is the dividing point. Beyond this stage, the cells are commited to devlopmental fates.

i think the only thing thats settled is that many people disagree.

Embryonic stem cells are 'master cells' that have the potential to develop into virtually every other type of cell in the body. By controlling their development, scientists could grow a range of tissues in the lab that could then be used to restore, or replace, diseased areas of the body. This is anything but 'embryo cloning' as critics often call it. 'Therapeutic cloning' would be a better term for this sort of cutting-edge biotechnology. Stem cell research does not involve the creation or destruction of even a single additional embryo. It uses embryos that are routinely discarded as part of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). And once a stem cell is created, it can be reproduced in the lab without any more embryos.

Sadly, Mr Bush's policy - if he has one - on stem-cell research seems to be that a dozen trashed cells still deserve to be protected from evil researchers. The president's ban on federally funded stem cell research will not save any embryo's life. If he really wants to get in the act, he should start by blowing the whistle on his own administration - for the US government actively encourages IVF by subsidising it directly.

Hindustan Times

<I think I edited it correctly....>

littlek
You are being rational and logical. When dealing with a religious concept there is unfortunately no room for logic or rationality. Mr. Bush should have been a preacher.not the president of the US. He would in all likelihood been a failure at that as well.

No, it would die. Even if the problems inherent in cloning attempts to date were solved, the embryo could not survive unless implanted into a human womb.

Even if it were implanted, there is a good chance that it would die since the IVF procedure has a high failure rate. Unneeded IVF embryos are discarded. They die too.

Most embryos die, whether they are created naturally or artificially. That is a fact of life. 2/3 of naturally fertilized eggs fail to grow. 15-25% of fetuses are miscarried, about half for severe genetic defects. There is just no inherent "right to life" for embryos.

max,

1 Of course we know when life begins. But that is not the question here. We are talking about the rights of a person vs their own cells.

2. The preamble did not apply to women, children, and slaves, who were not granted the same rights as men by our founding fathers.

3. There are no unalienable rights. We only have those rights which we mutually agree on and are willing and able to enforce.

I think it is a good idea. It should have been done years ago. I may not agree that it should be ALL - but, it should be at least

Clothing Optional!

For a society to really be considered civilized, it is incumbent upon it's members to continually push the boundaries of life outward, from both sides of the spectrum, when it is considered to have begun as well as when it is considered to have ended.

I applaud the extension of rights to women, children and slave, are you similarly inclined?

As science advances the ability to sustain life in the petrie dish, I think that we would do well to grant that life rights.

To paraphrase a wise man, Don't expect to be treated any better than how you treat the least among you.

When was that creation again, and please, a link would be nice to confirm your point.

I'm outa here.